Writer's Forum:: Citizen Journalism... What's The Point?

Even if you're unconscious while walking, you're still walking. That is to say, we're all a part of something just by being here, on this site. It's time we got to talking about just what that is.

Of late I have been finding that there is a broad range of approaches to submitting pieces on the Broowaha, and surely this is as it should be -- as our writers come from all over the world, and came to this forum, this thing, this Broo via many different roads and for many different reasons. Our ideas and beliefs are vastly diverse -- something that is visible not only in the articles themselves, but sometimes too in the vehement debates that follow, in comment form, at the bottom of some of the articles.

In response to some recent pieces I have found myself thinking critically about the medium in which we are all engaged.... the appropriateness of content, the tone of language, the depth of research behind claims, and arguments about why or why not things bear publication at all.

Quite a few authors who are involved here are deeply committed to the thing that it "citizen journalism," and in this, approach the work thus seriously. Others perhaps see it as more of a social network with a shared blog component, in which content is barely if at all policed, and serves no particular civic or social purpose.

Instead of continuing to merely argue content, purpose and attitude, without having ever coming to terms with that, in some ways, the site is both apples AND oranges, I think it's time we elevate the discussion to a critical dialogue.

In exchange with quite a few other Broo writers, it has been proposed that as a group effort as many as of us as are willing all work on something that addresses what exactly it is that we are doing here at Broowaha. That is to say, What IS Broowaha, from the authors’ standpoint? Why are you here? Perhaps it’s a personal, professional reason, perhaps it’s a political one, and perhaps it’s neither, or both, or something you never really thought about.

For me, one of the main reasons why I am here and why I think this dialogue is so necessary is because I value transparency in my mediums. Transparency both of purpose and of critical engagement with action. I regard this is an essential factor in the movement towards new media -- hence these questions, as an attempt at clarity, for all of us as well as for our audience.

- Lynne DeSilva-Johnson

--

Here are a number of questions that perhaps we can all answer, to try to see where we and our colleagues differ – no need for everyone to feel the same way! In fact, I hope this can generate discussion. A general outline follows. I look forward to your responses.

General

- What is “journalism”?

- What is “citizen journalism”

- What’s the difference? Why are either of these necessary, helpful, useful, or desireable?

- What would be the best possible condition in which journalism/citizen journalism would be available/published/distributed? What attributes would be present? What would be achieved by this being the case?

- What would be the worst? What would characterize this condition?

- What is the role of the journalist? Is the role of the citizen journalist any different?

- What is the responsibility of the journalist?

- What is the responsibility of the citizen journalist?

- How does the editorial team or ownership structure of journalism in either setting influence the work, the audience, and the meaning of the thing?

- What do you feel is the role of the editor in journalism? In citizen journalism?

A) how is this functioning historically, currently, or what trends are clear

B) what would be the appropriate role in your opinion?

Broowaha specific:

- How did you end up on the Broo?

- Why do you write here/continue to write here?

- What are your intentions when you write a story or submit something to the Broo?

- Do you consider your audience? How does this affect your work?

- Do you believe you have a responsibility as a writer in a public forum? How would you describe that responsibility? To whom are you responsible, in what ways, and how does that affect your work?

- What are your personal goals for the Broo as a forum? For your role in the Broo at large?

- What do you think is the best possible system for organizing, running, and regulating the Broo? What would be the worst?

- What do you think about it at current? If you have complaints, what would be your suggestions for changing it? Be specific. What do you like, why, and if you think it should be changed, how and why should it or could it be changed? What do you think could be achieved by the changes you are suggesting?

- What makes you consider stopping being involved here? have you ever stopped, do you consider stopping? Why?

- Do you consider yourself a “citizen journalist”? Now that you are thinking about it, if you began to consider yourself a “citizen journalist,” would that change how you approach your work on this medium?

Anecdotes and stories: Please refer to experiences you have had here or in other publishing environments. Be as specific as possible!

The questions -- perhaps, they give a pretty good idea of "where to begin," as you say!? No, just kidding. I'm hoping people will follow suit by publishing articles with their answers. That was the general idea. Because I feel it is only right, I plan to do the same, but I think I will do so in a few days, so as to not be didactic -- absolutely not my intent. Haha, I assume we are all adults enough to state our own opinions without copying eachother! No cheating!!!

I'll go over and check out your article in a bit Dave. Gotta balance today with paid work, at least for a little while... :p

I too have done some research into CJ. I have to say in some
cases I have seem better writing here than in some "real" pieces. I
like it here because this is not a blog dressed up to be writing and news. In
fact I have done a lot of work, trying to be the best writer I can. Classes,
workshops, and reading to understand what it means to be truly objective.

I thought citizen journalism is news and commentary to inform one another from the former audience of journalism, the public at large, hence the word citizen, under Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, while journalism is supposed to be a voice for those who don't have any voice.

Personally, I never heard of Broowaha before a friend recently suggested that I check out the site and start writing articles. As someone who loves writing, I have always believed in the saying: "A writer writes, always." So for me, coming here helps me practice my craft. This website also seems to be a great place for writers to connect and share ideas.

Honestly, the term "citizen journalism" is meaningless to me. I don't consider myself a journalist, and I'm pretty sure non-citizens can also contribute to the site. I'm just a writer: someone who writes for myself, and for others.

So great, everybody -- keep it coming! I want to give time and space that my over-tired mind doesn't have at current so I'll respond at some length to these tomorrow, but I couldn't be more excited at the comments so far, I think this is an excellent beginning to the conversation... clearly needed!

For now I did want to say @ dean: of course there are no "definitive answers" to these questions... my desire was to highlight exactly that, in fact -- to draw out our various perspectives, opinions, and personal definitions among the millions that surely exist in the minds of those who read and/or write any sort of "journalism" -- or any language at all, really. Any time we engage in conversation we have great slippage between the perspectives of the persons in dialogue -- from this comes the science of phenomenology and the questions as per if life is simply not perceptually different for each of us... but as people writing, using language, how precise can we be? how specific can we get? how close can we come, with words, to a place where more than the writer truly reads "the same" thing? Anyhoo, I digress. Clearly, my mind is closer to dreaming than critical thinking appropos to this forum already ;) more tomorrow...

Thanks, everyone.

@julian, thanks for your great responses to the questions. I'd love to see more people respond specificially to more on that list? it gives for as much comparison amongst our ranks as possible... but anything you have to say is so appreciated! and jg, will respond more specifically tomorrow.

I've been keeping a bit of a back seat to the discussion, which seems somewhat appropriate, but I did want to add a few things.

- @garrycrystal: I never gave much thought to whether or not I liked the term "citizen journalism." So I put it out there to all of you: what is a better name, if there could be one? Is it that it should be more clearly defined? Should the word "journalism," with all its tawdry and not always stellar record be eschewed from our self-labelling if we are truly in search of a new medium?

- Regarding the issue of things being rejected/published/policed/edited in "citizen journalism" settings:

At least on this site, there seems to be quite a bit of inconsistency regarding how and why things get published. On my end, I have been in turn bored, shocked, disgusted, appalled, and confused by various things that made their way into the pages -- and then confused and sometimes angered by learning (in particular after seeing these pieces) that others had been rejected. What would constitute reasons for rejection? For those who have gotten rejection, has there been any/adequate/what you considered reasonable commentary explaining the nature of the rejection? Do you think that this is something that should be done?

I also (@billfriday) have never had a word edited or a piece rejected since I arrived on the Broo. I would actually like a little more transparency about this, and perhaps Dave or Ariel would like to respond, and talk a little more about the process?

In general, I'm not a big fan of content and or even line edits by Editors, preferring a refusal to publish strategy that is accompanied by constructive criticism allowing the writer to make necessary changes for resubmission. Under the circumstances though I certainly know that when advertisements (@jen, grrrrrrr that makes me so mad I could spit) or self-involved blather worthy of a personal blog but nothing more, and sometimes (though this gets more complicated) totally unfounded, undocumented, and uncited diatribes about people, places, and things are included, I find myself thinking what exactly *is* going on editorially to keep up the Broo's mission... whatever it is.

You may have noticed, when submitting an article, that these "Tips" are given over in the right hand nav bar:

Topic

This is not a blog, but a newspaper: write articles that others will want to read, not rants about yourself

Content

Be precise

Check your facts, cite your sources

Above all, have fun!

If your article is rejected by BrooWaha, it will be sent back to your drafts so you can resubmit it once corrected.

I admit, I have laughed more than once reading this. I don't know if I laugh more at "this is not a blog, but a newspaper" or at "check your facts, cite your sources" when I'm submitting my work after reading some of the other offerings that made it through that checkpoint in the ether. Admittedly, it seems about as strict and neutral as the TSA's habits for telling certain people to take off their shoes, while other idiots in sheep's clothing stroll right on through with blades in their heels. For blather, gossip, and idle-seeming pot shots at other cultures, ideas, or people is just as sharp a knife to the site's heart as politically rife or damning information is. I'm kind of curious about how and why things make it through, and what others think about this.

I feel like perhaps if there was a clearly stated editorial manifesto outlining policies regarding inclusion, submission, and terms of rejection/resubmission that would bring a healthy amount of transparency to the site...

.....heeeeeey, democracy now! perhaps that's kind of what we're working on! all of us together, helping to rescript the terms of the site? if we were to make a list of editorial criteria, and define what would be an appropriate editorial process, what would you suggest, or put on it? perhaps it might also be a good exercise to, together, write a bit of a "what is the broo?" manifesto? yay! communism at work... oh wait, that's not a better word for citizen journalism. and we all know, kids, that once most of these ideas get off paper, that (@Max Weber) the need for organization and order turns the best and most communal intentions into dictatorships or at the least bureaucracies?

To be fair, I want to make clear that I am not embarking on this process or engaging in this dialogue as a means of revolution that seeks to overthrow or even to criticise our Editors (maybe chide a little here and there) -- but rather it is an attempt to step up to the plate regarding the thing we're all doing here, so that we stop "walking unconcious" and each play a role in assuming responsibility not only for our own work, but for the site as a whole -- its mission, its governance, its policies, its function. That is what citizen journalism would involve, for me, if it was truly performing its highest good.

Because let's remember: it's easy to be a critic. If I'm not mistaken, particularly in the beginning being an Editor or working at all on the backend of the Broo was (and remains) a labor of love. No one's here for the terrific pay and benefits, as we know. And clearly we are a motley, opinionated bunch -- writers being perhaps second to actors in their rightful claim to the primadonna throne. So I guess that's where I'm at: if we don't like it, we should be the first to suggest and implement the changes, and to encourage others to do so.

I'll make a few suggestions here:

- Gossip and personal blather. There is a gossip section, yes. I think sometimes things I don't like still kind of make sense here, if we are going to be low-brow enough to include this. I mean, people like it, I'll try not to be a snob. I mean hell, Gawker built an empire with these bricks. However, I think slander and unfounded gossip, or those things that are personal attacks on people should at the very least be accompanied with a STANDARD disclaimer on every one of these articles, ie: The gossip section of Broowaha is largely unpoliced. Rightly labelled "gossip" by inclusion here neither the Editorial nor writing community assume responsibility or congruence with the claims or opinions stated here.

As far as the personal blather is concerned (@eagle, and previous dialogue regarding that and other articles) perhaps at times inclusion of certain content suggests the need or desire for a more well fleshed out "forum" back end of the Broo, where people can post and respond to particular topics, give personal updates, discuss the weather, etcetera. This is common practice for all sorts of different sites. Sometimes clearer demarcation allows for better actualization. I doubt people would object if there was somewhere else to share that information -- yes, there is a community here, and this is certainly *not* a bad thing, but something to be encouraged, even farmed. Let's give it room to act that way, rather than blending sometimes inappropriately with site content -- also famous for happening in comment streams.

- Opinion: You may notice that I'm famous for posting the large portion of my pieces in the "Opinion" section of the site, even though they contain all sorts of different content. That's because I believe that since I am clearly biased, stating an opinion or philosophical take on a topic, that it is not appropriate to include my ideas in the other parts of the paper. I think this is perhaps one of the easiest and most important things that can be done editorially, and I can't imagine objection.

I teach my students to read for bias based on tone, content, et cetera, and clearly even those articles that masquerade as balanced and "objective" often lean to one side or the other. This runs rampant throughout the obsene, commercial mess that is today's media -- clearly we don't have factcheckers or a staff to keep this in check on the back end, but something that can easily be done is to put these articles (you know, the ones that make endless claims with NO citations?) in Op-Ed, where they belong. A rant about politics that makes mincemeat of your oponents (@liberals, don't get me started) does not an article about politics make, not in the content section of this paper or any other. It is appropriate for inclusion insofar as every voice is welcome, but we need again a clear deliniation. I would suggest to send these back to their authors requesting thorough documentation and citation, with the invitation to resubmit as Opinion otherwise.

Mostly I'm sitting back and watching/listening. All of this is very interesting and as I noted in the blog post (link in the first comment I left) its something I've been thinking about for Broowaha too.

We get ALL kinds of submissions here at Broowaha. Some are journalism, some are thoughts/opinions and we've also gotten poems and short stories.

Lately I've been rejectin the short stories/poems, etc. If it is based in fiction - I took a stand and decided it doesn't belong on the Broo.

What do you think?

I have also been trying to reject content that has no relation to news or opinions about the news.

What do you think? Should Broowaha be an open space for polemic's on religion? Or not (unless there is a news hook?).

@ julian gallo: I don't think at all that in this context the article needs to "appeal" to the Editor, as long as it holds up to certain codes (ie: citation and documentation, clear statement of bias if held, no undue slander or abuse, etc.)... it's not a literary magazine or something in which there's a particular slant, tone, or style that's being sought out. I feel that this would need to be considerably more clarified if disinterest from only an editor was grounds for dismissal of a piece

@ garry (and julian) : Regarding both of your posts makes me think about perhaps adding another section to the site, for creative posts -- ie, fiction, short stories, poetry et cetera. That makes it appropriate content for something clearly delineated as "creative" and not news; as of now creative submissions are, for the most part, not appropriate content for "news" sections of the site, per my assessment. I think expanding and clarifying what the different sections are for would do wonders -- as would "cross-referencing" certain things. (ie, if you are on the NYTimes or many other sites, a science book review is found both under 'science' as well as under 'book review'.

I also have a question about archives: how does that work here? When you go to each topic, you get a certain number of recent/popular articles. How would you get to ALL science sections per year?

Ha ha, I'm sure rewriting the site's architecture is totally in the cards!

@Dave, I made some pretty specific suggestions about how to regulate and organize content, if you look back at my earlier post from today... and clearly added an answer to a question you just asked even without seeing your question (re fiction, etc)

I think it's important that we acknowledge that irregardless of topic most here agree that there needs to be a clear line in the sand between pieces that are accepted as "news" or "content" and those which would fall in the Opinion section. I have no trouble with news worthy articles on or regarding religion, politics, or so forth -- but if the author has a bias and this forms the thrust of the article and especially if this is how the author's sources (if included at all) have been handpicked this is absolutely a place in which the Editorial staff in my opinion would be in the right to request the inclusion of more objective citations and or change the story to one in Op-Ed. Reportage and opinionated analysis are very different, I would say. Of course it is difficult or nigh impossible for anyone to remain truly balanced or "objective" there is a clear differential in articles where that is at all the goal and those when it is not, from point one. If the decision has been made, an opinion formed, and citations found to support the claim made prior to research, that does not consitute even-handed reportage. Know what I mean? So I think while I'm eager to have everyone sharing their opinions and ideas, we need to keep these clearly in the Op-Ed section of the site.

Regarding poetry/fiction/etc., there is clearly a precedent in many major news sources, papers, newsweeklies, magazines, etc. for creative writing in myriad forms and I do think it would be a great addition to the site... again like Op-Ed though perhaps it can be a different section, delineated from reportage ON arts/culture/et cetera... How hard would it be to add another section, @digidave?

@Dean, I think that there is definately a good point here. Sure, I do think that there is a time and a place for articles NOT in Op-Ed that demonstrate a clear bias. Now this is only my opinion but I think in those circumstances the important thing is that the bias is clearly exposed... ie, the Author then has a responsibility to both the subject and the audience to say, clearly, "This is my opinion and in no way represents the "news" in so far as "news"content portends to be objective. While I feel as though my conclusion was reached after giving fair consideration to all parties and has been thoroughly researched, this article should in no way be read as neutral, and does not claim to be." I think my issue is less the *having* of an opinion, even in non-Op-Ed parts of the paper, but making sure that in that case the subjective "I" of the author remains present. My issue comes when the I is removed, the passive/"scientific" voice used, and the bias masquerades as objective due to the linguistic manipulations of the author.

A question this raises is another important one: what responsibility does the citizen /audience or public have to keep itself "informed"? Is the newsmedia, the journalist, or even the citizen journalist responsible for an audience that comes to it largely slackjawed, without the effort or realization that there is great subjectivity and complexity behind every single thing that makes it to publication, no matter the medium? It is impossible, even if objectivity is desired, to "have the whole story"... thoughts?

To the last comment, et cetera -- 'twas not the point of this article or the invitation to forum to criticise or condemn. Yes, I am not entirely happy with a lot of things here, but I also know that it is sooo much easier to be a critic than to take the heat in the kitchen and I admire the people who started and run this website on the side of their actual jobs.

Because I was unhappy and thought some things needed changing, I began this forum. If there are other complaints, or particular suggestions regarding how or in what ways editing or different methodologies for running the site are better/possible/could make those who as writers have been ousted (if unfairly at times) feel less "thrown under the bus" -- that is the reason for this article.

For those of you this may have happened to, what was your strategy? did you ever talk to the editors and try to reason with them? what reasons did you give? are you willing to open up your dialogues to the community? perhaps a good way to do it is a jury of peers.

If the editor rejects, and the writer wants to resubmit, who would be willing to be on a potential committee to say "yay" or "nay" in these cases? I would, for one.

I discovered this site through the grapevine. I’m an honest and ethical Reno Realtor who was mad as hell when this site was brought to my attention. Mad not at the mortgage fraud exposes, kudos for that, but mad at these few people in my industry, real estate, that give the vast majority of us who are honest and ethical, a bad name. How in hell do I legitimately compete against what I've been reading here? I as me can't even say anything as my Broker is adamant that the Realtor Code of Ethics that is being violated in so much of what I read here, prohibits me from speaking out.

News: is any new information or information on current events which is presented by print, broadcast, Internet, or word of mouth to a third party or mass audience.

@ L DeSilva-Johnson: Good question you posed What would constitute reasons for rejection? Doesn’t an editorialstates opinions or gives perspectives? Isn’t honesty is adherence to the facts? If a piece meets any of those criteria and is correctly posted in an Opinion or in a News category, shouldn’t it should be published. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Here there seems to be one editor, this Digidave. Digidave rejecting the piece on Steering is weird. Digidave writes here @ http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4896#c18694I have also been trying to reject content that has no relation to news or opinions about the news then Digidave publishes something that is not newsnor an opinion about the news and is even false. http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4870#c18698. And Jen’s got a point about that Rachel Eagle Reiter. Nothing of hers so far published here should be published under the published BrooWaha rules and what Editor Digidave wrote here. Guess the editor here’s not trying hard enough ;)

And what about this stuff?

Topic

· This is not a blog, but a newspaper: write articles that others will want to read, not rants about yourself Content

· Be precise

· Check your facts, cite your sources Above all, have fun!

@ Digidave: But it, as well as all this so-called Citizen Journalism is also a blog and what is here already on this BrooWaha also is a blog as well as news, opinion, interviews, personal experiences, family stories, poetry, personal attacks, profanity, family remembrances, name-calling, shameless self-promotions, how I survived …., totally made-up for entertainment, and even false.

Blog: diary entries about their personal experiences and hobbies, with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video.

But that’s not consistently happening here as so proudly claimed by BrooWaha here in these links about this Broowaha.

Brian Burghart, Editor of the Reno News & Review, wrote “Call me old school, but I believe newspapers must go back to what they did when they provided a high-quality product and service.” Brian listed his ideas for a high-quality newspaper product and service: well-written local stories, in-depth coverage and investigations, insightful commentary, and more. The only print newspaper in Northern Nevada that I thought was providing all that was Brian’s Reno News & Review, which I’ve taken to exclusively reading on-line. I’d heard about this Reno BrooWaha, then I read this Craig B.’s comments he had posted to articles in the Reno News & Review with a link to this Reno BrooWaha. I thought his comments were insightful commentary, and more. I further read this Reno BrooWaha. There I discovered well-written local stories, in-depth local coverage and investigations, insightful commentary, and more. I now have two on-line newspapers that are providing what I want for local coverage. Then I discovered that this BrooWaha covers other broader issues and has editions world wide if I want to read something say about what’s happening in San Francisco or read a first hand account of events in Mumbai.

Why isn’t the Paris Edition translated into English? There are several translation softwares ;)

I say Good Riddance to the old clunky print newspapers, as they are stale and often dead on arrival when they hit the newsstands. Gannett and Hearst just don’t get it and I’m not waiting for them to do so.

DigiDave, a fit name for an on-line Editor, keep up the good work, and please consider consistency here to what you have on your site, that “ anyone can join and publish work, The fourth estate, which was the news industry, is now in all our hands - so we all share that responsibility.”

I think I asked some questions similar to this but here's an interesting thing: the idea of their being a "customer." Why customer? Why not "audience"?

Has not the idea that media is consumed and therefore the commodification of media has something to do with the problems it is currently facing? As citizen journalists do we get to eschew the idea of having a "market" or "customer," and return to a "public"? Is there a public? what does public MEAN now? But that's a whole other question...

I like it because it is fair and balanced. It is truly free press. I do not pay to be here or get paid to be here. You get immediate feedback on your article. It helps me personally to develope my skills as a writer. I have even searched Barnes and Nobles for a book on writing and none really intrigued me to read the book. This hands on learning is way more interesting and I learn faster. Because I am actually doing it as I am learning it. Kinda like a on the job training program.

Thank you so much for leaving this comment, which will bring the headline of this article back to the front page (lower right corner). I think the questions Lynn asks are really good questions, and I believe I will write an article to answer them myself.

I have a question please... can someone explain about languages or know of an article that explains how english translates to other languages? One reason some Americans are misunderstood is because of language. I am finding it harder to even communicate with Americans myself and I am American. If you go to dictionary.com the word take has over 200 meanings.

There was once a young man who, in his youth, professed his desire to become a great writer.

When asked to define "great" he said, "I want to write stuff that the whole world will read, stuff that people will react to on a truly emotional level, stuff that will make them scream, cry, howl in pain and anger!"

He now works for Microsoft, writing error messages.

And that's why I never became a writer. Citizen Journalist? I think we're just a bunch of neighbors talking about the neighborhood.